The gerrymandering war that is heating up across the country wasn’t started by Donald Trump, even though the Republican president sparked the latest hostilities by urging Texas to conduct a mid-decade redo to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress next year from that already GOP-dominated state.
The problem, rather, was birthed six years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that gerrymandering — the drawing of voting lines to try to ensure a specific outcome — was constitutional as long as it was done for strictly partisan reasons. That 2019 ruling by the conservative court’s majority has brought us to where we are now. The Texas Legislature, following the end of a two-week walkout by Democratic lawmakers, is expected to pass this week a new redistricting plan, its second since the 2020 census, that is designed to increase the number of that’s state’s GOP House members in Washington from 25 to 30.
California, a Democratic stronghold, is poised to counter with its own mid-decade redistricting to add five Democratic seats to its U.S. House delegation.
California’s counteroffensive is a little trickier. Although Texas can change its voting lines by legislative action, California’s redistricting would have to be approved by voters, since California had previously adopted the sensible reform that gives the power of drawing voting lines to an independent commission. Getting voter approval, though, should not be too difficult in a state where the political lopsidedness is underscored by an already 43-11 Democratic dominance in House seats. Five more Republican seats for Texas, five more Democratic seats for California. That sounds like a draw. So, what’s the big deal?
It is this.
First, there is no guarantee that Trump and his supporters or their opposition will be satisfied with a draw. The president, who has been given carte blanche by a compliant Congress controlled by Republicans, is worried that Democrats could retake control of the House in the 2026 elections. Such a power flip, which history suggests is probable, would at a minimum put a severe check on Trump’s overreach on tariffs, immigration, appropriations, personnel and other congressional prerogatives.
That prospect has Trump loyalists in other GOP-controlled states, including Florida, Indiana and Missouri, thinking about a second round of redistricting, too. If they proceed, other Democratic states, such as New York, are likely to respond.
The result would be further polarization and further extremism. It would shrink the number of House districts that are competitive between both parties, making the general election essentially irrelevant. With candidates only having to worry about winning their party primaries, they are more inclined to appeal to the extremes, knowing that the most strident voices within a party dominate when being nominated is tantamount to being elected.
This year’s gerrymandering war also creates a terrible precedent.
As a rule, states draw new voting boundaries every 10 years to account for population changes as reflected in the once-a-decade census. There is no law, though, that prevents states from redistricting more often than that. If mid-decade redraws become an acceptable political strategy, why stop there? Why not redraw them every two years in hopes of squeezing out a few more seats in the House? Two entities can stop this tit-for-tat from getting out of control. Congress could establish nationwide rules for redistricting, including limiting it to a once-a-decade exercise. Or the Supreme Court could reverse its 2019 decision, having now seen the havoc and unfairness that the ruling is creating.
America’s two-party system can only thrive if neither party has an undue advantage. Gerrymandering, including when it’s done for partisan purposes, undermines democracy by making some voters count more than others. It creates what Bloomberg columnist Ronald Brownstein describes as an “upside-down world where officeholders are picking their voters, rather than the other way around.”
